--On November 7, 2009 11:20:31 AM -0600 Rohit Patnaik <quanti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The direction of the association doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if > the "terrorist" is contacting me, or if I'm contacting the terrorist. > In either case, the US government should get a warrant before they spy > on me. Why? If they were pursuing criminal charges against you, then, by all means, they should have to comply with all the strictures that protect our rights. But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. The more people that are aware of what's going on, the higher the likelihood is that the persons being monitored will find out and change their operations. The problem is that the lines have blurred because of technological advances. So you have the dichotomy of the need to know what the enemy is up to juxtaposed against the need to protect citizens from an out of control government. I believe the line should be drawn clearly between information gathering and pursuit of criminal charges. Other believe differently. > Also, this executive opinion doesn't just apply to the CIA and > the NSA. It applies to the entire executive branch, including law > enforcement. > Huh? How do you know that? Have you seen the Executive Order? I've looked for it in the Presidential Archives. It's not there. > Secondly, we seem to have a general disagreement about the intent of the > laws regulating the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the > state. My opinion is that the restrictions placed on these agencies > were intentional. They were created by a Congress that was disgusted > by the rampant abuse of executive power that occurred during the Nixon > administration. That is correct. The Nixon administration was using the excuse of national security to spy on domestic activists, claiming they were a threat to national security. FISA was created to insert the courts into the process and prevent spying on US citizens without a warrant. But even when FISA was created, Congress noted that the law was not designed to infringe on the President's Constitutional powers to conduct foreign agent surveillance without a warrant. > They were strengthened when Reagan found loopholes in > those restrictions. As such, I don't think its Constitutionally valid > for the President to unilaterally ignore those restrictions. Yes, I'm > aware of the use of force resolution that was passed shortly following > the Sept. 11th attack. However, I don't think the language contained > therein represented a rollback of over 30 years of legislative > history. If it is really necessary for the intelligence agencies to > have these unprecedented powers, then they shouldn't be hesitant in > presenting their case before Congress. > There are two schools of thought. One says the Executive should ask Congress to change the laws to make the job easier to do. The other says the Executive's inherent powers make that unnecessary. FISA, if interpreted to require warrants for all surveillance of US citizens, even traitors working for the enemy, may well be an unconstitutional intrusion on the Executive branch's powers. If challenged in court, it might even be struck down as overly broad. Or the courts could clarify exactly where the line is drawn. I don't think the program "rolled back 30 years of legislation" as some have argued. I think it chose to interpret the Executive's powers as including the ability to monitor communications of the enemy, even when those communications crossed our borders, without having to engage the ponderous legal system and all the reams of paperwork that requires. FISA was designed before the age of transcontinental computer transmissions and never envisioned a scenario where the enemy's communications would be carried on circuits within the US. In fact FISA didn't even address individual actors but only nation states. The issues are complex, and they should be discussed without emotion or political rhetoric and unfounded charges that cloud the waters. And one must always keep in mind that we're talking about a military agency trying to track what our enemies are doing, not a domestic law enforcement agency trying to convict citizens of a crime. Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ****************************************** WARNING: Check the headers before replying _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/